Why are we comparing a portable telephone with a desktop computer in the first place? I own an iPhone and a Mac. They're not interchangeable. If I could only have one, it would be the desktop. I've lived w/o a phone for years, and now credit them mostly with making payphones collectors' items. I rarely get anyone who uses one to answer - they're probably shuffling photo's between "friends," which I'm sure they "like," or keeping track of their morning Pilates which they may not. Long live the pc.

Why are we comparing a portable telephone with a desktop computer in the first place? I own an iPhone and a Mac. They're not interchangeable. If I could only have one, it would be the desktop. I've lived w/o a phone for years, and now credit them mostly with making payphones collectors' items. I rarely get anyone who uses one to answer - they're probably shuffling photo's between "friends," which I'm sure they "like," or keeping track of their morning Pilates which they may not. Long live the pc.

Hear, hear!
And one question to ask is "Why did Apple do it?"
The courts have simply become one more playing field in which companies compete, and attempting to throw legal spanners into others works is common practice.
But you can argue Apple didn't really *need* to do this. The iPhone and iPad are fantastically successful, and are a major reason why Apple is in the position it is, with revenues and profits on its lines other device makers would kill for. And why Samsung is mounting an actual competitive challenge, Apple is in no imminent danger from them. It doesn't have to compete in the courtroom because it's doing so well in the marketplace.
It made me think about personalities, ego, and the stamp CEOs put on their companies. Steve Jobs was exceptionally competitive, and took any challenges personally. Any company who seemed to be doing anything like what Apple was doing in a line Apple was in was seen by him as copying Apple, and the result was outrage and fury, and a determination to get the copier. Steve's vision and attitudes permeated Apple.
I saw the lawsuit as an outgrowth of that. Steve would have been outraged and furious that Samsung was doing something like Apple when competing with them, and his reflex would have been to go for the kill. Apple is molded in Steve's likeness, so that's what it did.
You can probably make a business case that it was ultimately time and effort that would have been better spent on other things, but corporate egos tend to be unbounded in cases like this, and the lawsuit was offended ego.

Hear, hear!
And one question to ask is "Why did Apple do it?"
The courts have simply become one more playing field in which companies compete, and attempting to throw legal spanners into others works is common practice.
But you can argue Apple didn't really *need* to do this. The iPhone and iPad are fantastically successful, and are a major reason why Apple is in the position it is, with revenues and profits on its lines other device makers would kill for. And why Samsung is mounting an actual competitive challenge, Apple is in no imminent danger from them. It doesn't have to compete in the courtroom because it's doing so well in the marketplace.
It made me think about personalities, ego, and the stamp CEOs put on their companies. Steve Jobs was exceptionally competitive, and took any challenges personally. Any company who seemed to be doing anything like what Apple was doing in a line Apple was in was seen by him as copying Apple, and the result was outrage and fury, and a determination to get the copier. Steve's vision and attitudes permeated Apple.
I saw the lawsuit as an outgrowth of that. Steve would have been outraged and furious that Samsung was doing something like Apple when competing with them, and his reflex would have been to go for the kill. Apple is molded in Steve's likeness, so that's what it did.
You can probably make a business case that it was ultimately time and effort that would have been better spent on other things, but corporate egos tend to be unbounded in cases like this, and the lawsuit was offended ego.

I would suggest that one "tech-related blunder" not mentioned in the article might be the 2012 lawsuit of Apple vs Samsung. I think that Apple came away looking like a schoolyard bully, that the jury came out looking like they had been poorly coached, with a foreman who appeared to have his own baggage-axe to grind, and that ultimately this caused courts elesewhere in the world to retaliate.
The long-lasting effects might not be obvious yet, or who knows, there might be none, but I think it was definitely a blunder.

I would suggest that one "tech-related blunder" not mentioned in the article might be the 2012 lawsuit of Apple vs Samsung. I think that Apple came away looking like a schoolyard bully, that the jury came out looking like they had been poorly coached, with a foreman who appeared to have his own baggage-axe to grind, and that ultimately this caused courts elesewhere in the world to retaliate.
The long-lasting effects might not be obvious yet, or who knows, there might be none, but I think it was definitely a blunder.

Hardly a tech blunder. What 'considering outsiders' means is that there is more than one internal candidate. It'll be interesting to see what Otellini and the board come up with, and who leaves as a result.

Hardly a tech blunder. What 'considering outsiders' means is that there is more than one internal candidate. It'll be interesting to see what Otellini and the board come up with, and who leaves as a result.

In conjunction with unveiling of EE Times’ Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. One of Silicon Valley's great contributions to the world has been the demonstration of how the application of entrepreneurship and venture capital to electronics and semiconductor hardware can create wealth with developments in semiconductors, displays, design automation, MEMS and across the breadth of hardware developments. But in recent years concerns have been raised that traditional venture capital has turned its back on hardware-related startups in favor of software and Internet applications and services. Panelists from incubators join Peter Clarke in debate.